Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
As we've discussed on GC before, I think this gets to the real crux of the issue and to why general hazing discussions so often go nowhere. There is no agreed upon definition of hazing. We have some people who define hazing as things like forced consumption of large amounts of alcohol but not, say, being required to drive for brothers, We have others who define hazing as anything that distinguishes between pledges/new members and initiated members, including forbidding new members from wearing letters. And then we have the the full spectrum in between, including those who distinguish between "permissible" hazing and "impermissible" hazing.
It doesn't help for the purposes of this kind of discussion to say "look at legal definitions" or school/GLO policies -- they're all over the map, too.
As a result, we end up talking past each other.
|
MysticCat's statements are right on target. This is the real argument at the heart of the issue.
(
BUMPing this post for emphasis before it got lost in the proverbial "shuffle")...